A prospective bidder on Monday branded as “illegal” the proposal of SM Land Inc. (SM) to develop the 300-hectare reclamation in Pasay City saying that it did not follow proper procedures.
On Monday’s hearing of the Pasay City Council, S&P Construction Technology & Development Co. Inc. as well as Ayala Land Inc. aired their concerns and grievances on the project.
The two prospective bidders also asked the Council to grant their requests for an extension of the submission of their counter proposals which were earlier rejected by the Public Private Partnership-Selection Committee (PPP-SC).
S&P Construction reiterated that the SM proposal is illegal since it did not follow proper procedures and it also noticed irregularities in the procedure being followed by the PPP-SC in conducting the bidding process.
The project stemmed from an unsolicited proposal submitted by SM Land which involves the reclamation of 300 hectares of foreshore and offshore of Manila Bay.
The project is supposed to be completed in seven years and has an estimate cost of P54 billion.
SM proposes to undertake the project under a contractual joint venture agreement with the local government of Pasay. Under SM’s proposal 51 percent of the reclaimed land will go to SM and 49 percent to the LGU.
But S&P and Ayala Land learned of the unsolicited proposal after publication of the same.
Based on the published notice, competitive bids had to be submitted on or before November 4.
Interested parties will also have to fulfill the following requirements for their counter-proposals to be considered: They must have completed at least a 120-hectare reclamation project of their own, preferably within the Manila Bay area; They must have at least P50 billion in net worth; and They must show proof from the tax bureau or banks of their ability to raise funds for the completion of the project.
However, upon purchase of the bid documents, S&P noticed irregularities in the procedure being followed by the PPP-SC.
Because of this, the company submitted clarificatory questions to the PPP-SC on October 30. When it said questions were left unanswered, S&P sent another letter on November 5.
S&P questioned the Bidding Rules which is being applied to the Project. During the pre-bid conference, the City Legal Officer informed those present that the rules to be followed was a combination of the 2008 NEDA JV Guidelines and the Agra Primer.
On the other hand, the terms of reference (TOR) for Competing Proposals makes reference to the Procurement Act.
Ritchie A. Horario